That's correct.
"Evolution as a fact has not been falsified."
All that is going on there is that 'evolution' has been defined to conform to the adaptation that is observed. No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes. I don't think you understand the problem.
I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan.
Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening.